The [irrational & annoying] price of comics.

Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Honestly its because they need to pay Writers, Inkers, Pencilers, Letterers, Colorists a living wage... Less pages mean less money for these guys already, and dropping the prices could mean the creative side can't make that much money.

That said, this is obviously an inflated market... Marvel could still win this by announcing a return to $2.50
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Honestly its because they need to pay Writers, Inkers, Pencilers, Letterers, Colorists a living wage... Less pages mean less money for these guys already, and dropping the prices could mean the creative side can't make that much money.

This gets into some dicey territory. The basics of economics/supply and demand say that if you can't make enough to cover expenses because of lack of demand, you need to adjust your expenses, not charge more. You can't charge more if there is no demand (I don't mean literally zero demand, of course).

This is another thing that irked me about Joe Q.'s comments about ghettoizing themselves, when he said something to the effect of they, the industry was ghettoizing themselves by not placing enough value in their work. That's a myth - you can't do that once you are already established. Or, I should say, you can do it all you want but it doesn't mean people will follow you. Your customers set your price. I can dump a can of paint on a canvas and insist that it's worth a million dollars, but if no one will pay a million dollars for it...then it's NOT worth a million dollars.

This can totally be taken the wrong way, like I'm telling artists or writers they don't deserve to earn what they want or whatever. That's not the case at all. What I'm saying is that the market, in what seems to be an obvious refusal to pay higher prices for books, doesn't place the same value on their work as they do. They have a choice - charge what customers are willing to pay and adjust their costs accordingly, or find some other work where the market pays them what they believe they are worth.

I've seen a number of articles since the price decreases were announced talking about price per page and whatnot, and it's all interesting on some level, but what it doesn't do is examine the quality of the content being added and the customer's perceived value of it. I can't remember if Captain America was one of the 3.99 titles but I will assume since they were including the Nomad stories in each issue that it was. Trouble is, I - and I assume a large number of other readers - couldn't possibly care less about a Nomad backstory, especially since it a) has little to do with the main story and b) isn't written by Ed Brubaker. If I place no value on that backstory, why on Earth would I care that its inclusion means I'm paying less per page?
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Man, I can't believe how much E hates the writers and artists. He doesn't even think they deserve to be paid. :noway:
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Trouble is, I - and I assume a large number of other readers - couldn't possibly care less about a Nomad backstory, especially since it a) has little to do with the main story and b) isn't written by Ed Brubaker. If I place no value on that backstory, why on Earth would I care that its inclusion means I'm paying less per page?

Precisely. If budget cuts are necessary, I'd rather lose two pages to the story I want to read than pay an extra dollar for the inclusion of a story I don't even want.

I'm skeptical that a price cut is the fix-all solution to the problem, though. If you cut books from, say, 2.99 to 1.99, that means you essentially need to increase your readership by 33% to keep the same profits, more than that, really, because the production cost percentages are higher per unit. I'm skeptical that we'd see that kind of increase in the direct market. Really, I only see there being two possible outcomes to whatever solution we see. Either the brick and mortar shop owners suffer or the creatives suffer. Looking at new methods of distribution would help the artists but kill the direct market. Focusing more to digital means that more of the money that would be sent in producing single issues would instead go to writers and artists, while focusing on book stores means you appeal to a stronger audience but draw your core away from direct market sellers. Alternately, you could spike up prices and try to keep direct market prices competitive with printed floppies, but that means you're going to only retain the core audience, the guys who go to comic shops anyway and are willing to pay whatever price, with the high price tag on digital comics providing a barrier to entry to new readers.

I think it's tricky no matter how you cut it. I can't fault for Marvel and DC for experimenting with prices, but I think the only way we might satisfy everyone is to experiment with formats. I'd look at the state of the (equally suffering) music industry for possible opportunities. Here you have an art form that basically caters to three strata of fans. You have digital domination from the scores of casual fans, while CD's still retain moderate to low popularity and vinyl remains a niche but still successful market for music purists. Most records these days include codes for digital downloads. I'd suggest putting the brunt of marketing behind digital sales. Drop prices to draw in new readers. Provide some sort of extra content for those who go into the comic shop. Rebrand the physical versions of the books as, essentially, the "hi-fi" special edition versions. You can raise prices but make sure to provide some sort of extra content that will target the market, specialist consumers. They may also look into experimenting with digest forms. Consumable, larger books on cheaper print more in the format of manga. Provide, say, all the month's Superman titles in stripped down, cheaper print black and white.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

This gets into some dicey territory. The basics of economics/supply and demand say that if you can't make enough to cover expenses because of lack of demand, you need to adjust your expenses, not charge more. You can't charge more if there is no demand (I don't mean literally zero demand, of course).

This is another thing that irked me about Joe Q.'s comments about ghettoizing themselves, when he said something to the effect of they, the industry was ghettoizing themselves by not placing enough value in their work. That's a myth - you can't do that once you are already established. Or, I should say, you can do it all you want but it doesn't mean people will follow you. Your customers set your price. I can dump a can of paint on a canvas and insist that it's worth a million dollars, but if no one will pay a million dollars for it...then it's NOT worth a million dollars.

This can totally be taken the wrong way, like I'm telling artists or writers they don't deserve to earn what they want or whatever. That's not the case at all. What I'm saying is that the market, in what seems to be an obvious refusal to pay higher prices for books, doesn't place the same value on their work as they do. They have a choice - charge what customers are willing to pay and adjust their costs accordingly, or find some other work where the market pays them what they believe they are worth.

I've seen a number of articles since the price decreases were announced talking about price per page and whatnot, and it's all interesting on some level, but what it doesn't do is examine the quality of the content being added and the customer's perceived value of it. I can't remember if Captain America was one of the 3.99 titles but I will assume since they were including the Nomad stories in each issue that it was. Trouble is, I - and I assume a large number of other readers - couldn't possibly care less about a Nomad backstory, especially since it a) has little to do with the main story and b) isn't written by Ed Brubaker. If I place no value on that backstory, why on Earth would I care that its inclusion means I'm paying less per page?
Perfect way to put it. Agreed completely.

That's E-conomics for you.
Now that's a pun. :lol:
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Will DC ever stop proving they're better than Marvel? I think the slaughter rule should be in effect by now.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Precisely. If budget cuts are necessary, I'd rather lose two pages to the story I want to read than pay an extra dollar for the inclusion of a story I don't even want.

I agree to a point. It sets a very dangerous precedent, though. It wouldn't be long before we were paying $3 per issue for a 10-page story which some garbage like previews for other books or reprints thrown in.

I'm skeptical that a price cut is the fix-all solution to the problem, though. If you cut books from, say, 2.99 to 1.99, that means you essentially need to increase your readership by 33% to keep the same profits, more than that, really, because the production cost percentages are higher per unit. I'm skeptical that we'd see that kind of increase in the direct market. Really, I only see there being two possible outcomes to whatever solution we see. Either the brick and mortar shop owners suffer or the creatives suffer. Looking at new methods of distribution would help the artists but kill the direct market. Focusing more to digital means that more of the money that would be sent in producing single issues would instead go to writers and artists, while focusing on book stores means you appeal to a stronger audience but draw your core away from direct market sellers. Alternately, you could spike up prices and try to keep direct market prices competitive with printed floppies, but that means you're going to only retain the core audience, the guys who go to comic shops anyway and are willing to pay whatever price, with the high price tag on digital comics providing a barrier to entry to new readers.

I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I do not believe that brick and mortar stores make very much on new issues. I believe most shops function as collectible resellers and thus make most money on back issues and merchandise like shirts, TPBs, etc. I believe most/many shops use new issues just as a way to get people in the door on a regular basis.

I think it's tricky no matter how you cut it. I can't fault for Marvel and DC for experimenting with prices, but I think the only way we might satisfy everyone is to experiment with formats. I'd look at the state of the (equally suffering) music industry for possible opportunities. Here you have an art form that basically caters to three strata of fans. You have digital domination from the scores of casual fans, while CD's still retain moderate to low popularity and vinyl remains a niche but still successful market for music purists. Most records these days include codes for digital downloads. I'd suggest putting the brunt of marketing behind digital sales. Drop prices to draw in new readers. Provide some sort of extra content for those who go into the comic shop. Rebrand the physical versions of the books as, essentially, the "hi-fi" special edition versions. You can raise prices but make sure to provide some sort of extra content that will target the market, specialist consumers. They may also look into experimenting with digest forms. Consumable, larger books on cheaper print more in the format of manga. Provide, say, all the month's Superman titles in stripped down, cheaper print black and white.

I don't know if it's a matter of "equally suffering" is it? My impression was that the comic industry was doing fairly well, especially compared to, say, the music industry. They have an obligation to their shareholders to make them as much money as possible. The problem is that raising prices is an insanely naive and simplistic way to go about this, and almost stupid because of the high risk of alienating customers. There are other ways to experiment with maximizing profits - maybe they are doing some of them and just aren't publicizing it; I don't know.

Marvel is incredibly lucky that they aren't getting more of a publicity black eye over this. They are essentially retreating with their tail between their legs with this price decrease. They are admitting that it didn't work and the indication, logically, is that sales took a huge hit. I say "huge" because remember that going into this they were prepared for a drop off in the number of books sold, thinking that the higher price would make up for it.

Actually, that right there shows you how ill-conceived the plan was and it should have been apparent. Who in their right mind would willingly sacrifice sales in terms of units sold, especially when they were doing well enough with prices as they were? That's asinine.

As far as brick and mortar stores go, they don't have to suffer in a shift to digital. There is no reason why they can't be allowed to sell gift cards or something similar to that at a discount to customers. Digital issues are sold individually - let them sell some kind of voucher for a miniseries or arc at a discount. Get them in on it. It can't hurt.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

The gift card thing is a great idea. It's just how game stores are able to sell you point cards that you use to buy virtual games on the consoles.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Something occurs to me:

If you pay for something, it means you don't get ads for it.

If you pay for a TV channel, it does not have ads (HBO, BBC). If you pay for a novel, it does not have ads.

But comics do. And magazines. And movies. I am confused as to why.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Because the companies placing ads pay for space on the page or the whole page itself which would actually lower the prices of the book, magazine or comics you buy. In some cases, it's free because the company printing the paper or comic is making 100% of their profit from advertisers. When it comes to serialized publications like comics, magazines or newspapers, their treated in the same vein as cable tv. You pay for that but you're exposed to ads for 8 minutes for every hour.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Something occurs to me:

If you pay for something, it means you don't get ads for it.

If you pay for a TV channel, it does not have ads (HBO, BBC). If you pay for a novel, it does not have ads.

But comics do. And magazines. And movies. I am confused as to why.


It's the Cost-to-Revenue ratio. I learned about this in my Advertising courses. Since we're on a comic site, I'll use comics as an example. Each comic costs quite a bit to create, with Writers, Pencillers, Inkers, Colorists and Letterers, as well as Editorial costs. On top of that for every great selling book, there's a multitude of moderate selling books. The per unit cost of each comic is relatively high for their cover price, so by providing space for targeted advertising, it helps to mitigate the costs, and helps the publisher turn a profit.

Same goes with magazines.

Now, like at the movies, that's a whole different animal, most theater chains in the US have gone to ad revenue, because the studios have gone out of their way to dick the theater owners on profits. So, the theaters have to get profits to survive, which is why we're now starting to see full fledged commercials in theaters.

Channels like HBO (and other premiums) generally see their profits come from deals from content distributors like TimeWarner, DirectTV and even iTunes, and with the relatively lower overhead to run a network that only runs movies (usually a leasing set up with the content providers). Though, with the growing success of the Original Series, premium channels are seeing lots of profit from DVD/Blu-Ray/Merchandising, so they're getting more revenue.


I don't know anything about it, other than what I've read, but isn't BBC state funded? If so that's similar to our PBS, which is paid for by government grant money and private donations.


Showing my age here, but I remember when the Disney Channel didn't run commercials.


Edit: aaaand I just noticed that I did a significantly longer winded explanation that Agamemnon already gave -.-

Sorry
 
Last edited:
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

Showing my age here, but I remember when the Disney Channel didn't run commercials.

Me too! I was SO EXCITED when my family finally got Showtime and Disney Channel as part of a pay package deal!

Yeah except BBC has better programs than PBS or even FOX,CBS and NBC.

but not ABC?

BBC is England's answer to public broadcasting, but if I recall correctly, anyone who has a TV has to pay a state TV tax annually.

When I was there, BBC channels comprised almost all of the television play in England, but that may have changed.
 
Last edited:
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

It is a law we have to pay for a TV license which is about £100 a year, and that gets us the BBC - which is actually much cheaper than Sky TV (which is always campaigning to get rid of the BBC). The BBC is just wonderful. Not everything on it is great, but it produces original British television, has no ads, and it's cheap.

Movie theatres are so dicked around by Hollywood it's insane; that's why the popcorn costs so much and why there's thirty minutes of adverts now. It's pathetic.

As for comics - I'm surprised that the cost to produce a comic requires them to a) charge as much as they do and b) require so much advertising within them (about 50%, as opposed to 25% on TV). I think it's emblematic of the industry being incapable of generating new readership. And since Zombipanda pointed it out to me, I don't think it's Marvel or DC's fault anymore. I think what we need is more publishing companies producing more material. I think, with the way graphic novels work, the serial comic is pointless as it is. It needs to be significantly cheaper, without ads, and with serialised storytelling, else if I were Marvel or DC I'd just produce original graphic novels as the product quality would be higher.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

I have some things to say about E's comments, but I'll get to them later. It's hard to make an argument one way or another because we really don't have that much firm data on how well the industry is doing, but I think you make some good points.

As for comics - I'm surprised that the cost to produce a comic requires them to a) charge as much as they do and b) require so much advertising within them (about 50%, as opposed to 25% on TV). I think it's emblematic of the industry being incapable of generating new readership. And since Zombipanda pointed it out to me, I don't think it's Marvel or DC's fault anymore. I think what we need is more publishing companies producing more material. I think, with the way graphic novels work, the serial comic is pointless as it is. It needs to be significantly cheaper, without ads, and with serialised storytelling, else if I were Marvel or DC I'd just produce original graphic novels as the product quality would be higher.


I think without question, the number one thing the comics industry needs is more diversity in publishing. We need more art house publishers, more publishers that cater to specific genres, more experimentation. I've always gathered that there's a pretty high barrier to entry for new publishers, with Diamond controlling distribution, Marvel and DC dominating the shelves, and only so much space in the comic shops (Especially since, as E pointed out and I agree, comic shops primarily seem to make their money off of merchandise and back issues). The advent of digital comics seems to largely do away with a lot of those problems. Distribution, sales space, printing costs, and even editorial are practically unnecessary with digital. All you really need is a writer and an artist. "Publishers" needn't be more than a community of creators, living off their own creations without being indebted to the companies who own the printing press, sharing ideas and branding under a common banner. I think it's an exciting opportunity and it makes me want to sit down and write.



As for a move towards exclusively hardbound collections, I don't see any real problem with it. I pretty much entirely collect in trades these days myself, as it does away with all the problems I have with the medium. But, we essentially have that already. Sure, we have single issues, still, but stories are built for trades and collected in trades a few months later. Shifting production entirely to trades would just cut off a revenue stream, right?

If I had unlimited cash flow and full creative control over DC or Marvel I'd actually go the opposite route, experiment with a many different options as possible and see what works. I'd cut out ads entirely. Ongoing floppies would be cut back to about 8-10 series. You'd take the big name books from the company, (say Superman and Action, Batman & Robin and Detective Comics, Flash, Green Lantern, etc.), tether them to big name creative teams, and release them bi-monthly as 45-pagers, on glossy, high quality stock (I'm thinking the production values used for Final Crisis). Sure, they'd be more expensive, but they'd be weighty and high quality. TPB sometimes come with "special features" that aren't in the monthlies. I'd suggest shifting that dynamic, so that when you pick up the monthly, it's going to come with something, whether it's interviews or sketches or script pages, that aren't going to be included in the trade. Essentially, you're selling them as the comics equivalent of premium vinyl, marketed to the collector and fan market. Along with miniseries that follow the same format, the equivalent of event comics or creator prestige projects, would pad weekly production of single issues to about four or five a month. The rest of the supplementary monthlies would be folded into monthly collections, printed in black and white in thicker books, the way manga is collected. So you might have Batman Family, Superman Family, DCU Universe, etc. each at a hundred some pages, on cheap stock, marketed at a low price, sold as consumables. I'd also possibly suggest a weekly anthology book like 2000 AD.

For the digital market, you'd collect everything. The individual stories from the black and white collections would be colored and sold a la carte. Same with the premium books, but possibly with a staggered release. Sprinkle your library with digital exclusives that can be used to test the waters for new series' or to draw readers into existing books.

And then, of course, collect everything in trades when it's all said and done.
 
Last edited:
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

I walked into my LCS and saw this ad campaign from DC:
DC-Price-ad.jpg

Made my day, I laughed so hard!

Then I went online and read Tom Brevoort's response:
I think that if it works for them, and they can run their business and make their money on that cover price, good for them. But I know for certain that we can't, so I must assume that they're still in the traditional DC position of not really having to earn a direct profit in publishing, since they'll get a credit for all of their licensing and so forth on the Warner's ledgers. That's not a luxury that we have–or really, that we want.

Then someone asked this:
"...they'll get a credit for all of their licensing and so forth on the Warner's ledgers. That's not a luxury that we have--or really, that we want." Why not?

To which he responded:
Because if you're going to be a publishing division, to want to tell stories and to publish, don't you want them to be read by people? Don't you want them to be profitable? Sure, if we had the luxury of not having to make sure that each title earns its keep, we could coast a bit--but that wouldn't make for better comics, that would just make us lazier and sloppier (and we're plenty lazy and sloppy as it is.) Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

So according to him, DC doesn't make a profit off their comics b/c they're less expensive, but that doesn't matter b/c WB gives them a credit and makes money off the product licensing. Marvel is glad that's not the case with them b/c they're already lazy and sloppy and that kind of system would make them lazier and sloppier. And if that happened, they would also not make a profit, not because the costs are lower, but because they aren't professional enough to do their jobs well.

I see.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

This may be just me, but I wouldn't say "Marvel" feels like that. It seems to be just Tom Brevoort. It always him & Quesada that made those comments.
 
Re: The [apparently decreasing] price of comics.

I don't think Marvel feels that way, either. I'm just summing up what he said.

"That's not a luxury...that we want"
"That would just make us lazier and sloppier (and we're plenty lazy and sloppy as it is.)"

I don't think it's fair to judge Marvel's work ethic as a whole based on these incredibly dumb statements, but Marvel should reconsider who they let represent them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top